Why Do Big-Government Liberals And No-Government Anarchists Riot At the Same Riots? They Want The SAME Thing

I had a realization of why big-government liberals and no-government anarchists would be in the same camp (as they clearly are).

Liberals have been calling Republicans “anarchists.”  It doesn’t matter that we very clearly AREN’T.  I mean, which party supports a federal government going to war???  Is it the damn DEMOCRAT Party?  Nope.  Which party represents law and order and which one has been sending rioters to Ferguson, Missouri to protest a cop having the right to shoot a thug strong arm robber?  Yep, it sure aint Republicans.

The “Republican anarchists” crap is a myth from the Party of LIARS.

Republicans are all for government.  They just want that government to be limited to the proper role as described in the Constitution.  We’re the ones who favor a strong military because a strong military is one of the relative FEW things that the Constitution approves of federal government doing in “providing for a common defense.”  We know that a strong military serves as a deterrent to foreign aggression such as we are beginning to experience now at the hands of Russia, China, North Korea and Islamic State.  We know that maintaining a strong military generates allies – the kind we are losing by the SCORES right now under Obama’s immoral policies.  We also support a strong police to deter crime.  And as our ability to arrest, prosecute and incarcerate and put to death criminals deteriorates, guess what happens every time: a skyrocketing surge in crime.  We also as Republican conservatives believe that government should be strong enough to maintain a level playing field but weak enough to not be able to tip the scale to favor one chosen side over the other.  The result of that policy would be lower taxes, less regulation, less bureaucracy and more JOBS.

We want government.  We just don’t want the State that replaces God and thinks it has the right to dominate everything.  Because our founding fathers actually fought a damn REVOLUTION to separate themselves from a British state that was NOWHERE NEAR as thuggish and dictatorial as the one we’re in now.

But here liberals are, labeling Republicans as “anarchists.”

Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, one of THE most important Democrats in the nation, called Republicans “anarchists.”

Elizabeth Warren, the woman the left wants to run for president for 2016, called Republicans “anarchists.”

Let’s take a moment to examine the leftists own argument as they try to make a nonexistent connection between Republicans and anarchists:

In 2011, Timothy Egan wrote a blog post for the Opinionator, the New York Times’ regular online opinion mill. He described his experience at the 1999 World Trade Organization summit in Seattle. He described the window-smashing, understood by anarchists as being purely symbolic and a venting of frustration against multinational corporations who exploit workers at home and abroad, as a manifestation of the nihilistic spirit of all anarchists everywhere. “[It] seems to have found a home: in the Republican Party,” he wrote.

Yeah, let’s go back to Ferguson, Missouri.  WHO is smashing windows and whining about the exploitation of workers???  I mean, seriously, you actually think it’s REPUBLICANS???

Let’s replay who was involved in those Seattle World Trade Organization riots:

Organizations and planning[edit]

Planning for the demonstrations began months in advance and included local, national, and international organizations. Among the most notable participants were national and international NGOs (especially those concerned with labor issues, the environment, and consumer protection), labor unions (including the AFL-CIO), student groups, religiously-based groups (Jubilee 2000), and anarchists (some of whom formed a black bloc).[2]

The coalition was loose, with some opponent groups focused on opposition to WTO policies (especially those related to free trade), with others motivated by pro-labor, anti-capitalist, or environmental agendas. Many of the NGOs represented at the protests came with credentials to participate in the official meetings, while also planning various educational and press events. The AFL-CIO, with cooperation from its member unions, organized a large permitted rally and march from Seattle Center to downtown.

However, others were more interested in taking direct action including both civil disobedience and acts of vandalism and property destruction to disrupt the meeting. Several groups were loosely organized together under the Direct Action Network (DAN), with a plan to disrupt the meetings by blocking streets and intersections downtown to prevent delegates from reaching the Washington State Convention and Trade Center, where the meeting was to be held. The black bloc was not affiliated with DAN, but was responding to the original call for autonomous resistance actions on November 30 issued by People’s Global Action.[3]

Of the different coalitions that aligned in protest were the “teamsters and turtles” – a blue-green alliance consisting of the teamsters (trade unions) and environmentalists.[4][5][6]

Corporations targeted[edit]

Certain activists, including locals and an additional group of anarchists from Eugene, Oregon[7] (where they had gathered that summer for a music festival),[8] advocated more confrontational tactics, and planned and conducted deliberate vandalism of corporate properties in downtown Seattle. In a subsequent communique, they listed the particular corporations targeted, which they considered to have committed corporate crime.

EVERY SINGLE THING mentioned in those paragraphs above – every single group and every single tactic – are leftist and come from the LEFT.  EVERY SINGLE ONE.

Republicans favor laissez-fair free trade and free markets.  We’re also told every damn day that WE’RE the pro-big corporation party.  REPUBLICANS WERE NOT RIOTING.  LIBERALS WERE.

But being liberals, they are pathologically dishonest lying hypocrites without shame, without honesty, without integrity, without virtue and without honor.

So why would anarchists who hate government and liberals who love government be completely on the same side?

Because they both want the same damn thing, that’s why.

I’ve been pointing this out over and over again on my blog.  Big government liberalism is crony capitalism, where liberals get to decide who wins and who loses, who gets taxed and who gets tax breaks, who gets their wealth seized and who receives the redistribution of wealth, who gets fat union contracts and benefits and who gets stuck with the bill for those fat union contracts and benefits.

Liberalism is nothing short of a massive plan to benefit the rich – THEIR rich, mind you – by stealing from everybody else.

Hollywood liberals are THE most likely people to say taxes ought to be higher on everybody while demanding and receiving from the massive Democrat majority in California special tax breaks.  It’s just who these hypocrites are, pure and simple.

In my own incredibly dysfunctional city, I have been crushed and saddened by the election of liberals to dominate the city council.  I wanted to cry the last election.

So I’m talking with the owner of my gym.  She points out that the city nailed her with a big fee to put rocks in the front of her gym.  She was able to document that the police department didn’t have those rocks in the same sort of area; the fire department didn’t have rocks in the same exact sort of area.  It didn’t matter, the liberals of the city council said; it was “the cost of doing business.”  We get to decide who wins and who loses, and guess what: we decided that you lose.

So a big developer comes in and wants to build a complex.  And anchoring the complex is a huge gym.  And guess what: the same damn city council that nickeled and dimed the small biz gym is all of a sudden waving huge development and impact costs for this developer.

And the small gym owner is pointing out to me, “Who is going to get stuck with those costs?  I am.  And meanwhile they wouldn’t cut me so much as ONE INCH of slack over even the most TRIVIAL costs.”

Ah, liberalism.  Where whites lose and minorities win.  Where men lose and women win.  Where Christians lose and homosexuals win.  Democrats pit races, classes, genders and ages and win a majority by 50 percent plus ONE.  And then it’s “and punish our enemies and reward our friends” time:

Well, what does that have in common wit h anarchists and no government at ALL?

Because the same people who choose who wins and who loses with big government and crush and oppress the rest of us are the same people who would hire thugs and crush the rest of us if there were no government at all, that’s what.  What does the law mean?  Well, we’ve seen that now under Obama and his lawthug Eric Holder.  We’ve SEEN it in the liberals on the Supreme Court: it means whatever the left SAYS it means.

You’ve got your Western movie plot: a bunch of small government conservatives are living in a small town running their little businesses and all of a sudden some rich and powerful slimebag comes in with all his hired guns and seizes control and runs everybody who doesn’t knuckle under to him out.  And to the extent that there’s any law, they BUY the law and its THEM wearing the damn badges.  That’s what these people do when there’s no government and that’s what these people do when government gets huge enough to pick all the winners and the losers.

Big-government liberals or no-government anarchists: either way, it’s just a different means toward the same end, it’s just a different way to give total power to the SAME people, is all.

Tags: , , , , ,

6 Responses to “Why Do Big-Government Liberals And No-Government Anarchists Riot At the Same Riots? They Want The SAME Thing”

  1. truthunites Says:

    “Ah, liberalism. Where whites lose and minorities win.”

    Watch the following recent news story: Uncensored Video: Scores of Black Teens Attack White Shoppers.

  2. Michael Eden Says:

    truthunites,

    I saw that on the news yesterday (Fox News, of course; nobody ELSE would report actual facts, would they?).

    It was noted that a single black man was also assaulted. He was an employee. And I’ll bet my dollars to your donuts – especially if your donuts are apple fritters – that the one black employee who was attacked and beaten was a hero who was trying to stand up and protect his customers from a racist mob. In other words, YES, it was a RACIST attack, and one black man said, “I’m doing what’s RIGHT.” And he suffered for it.

    But you show me a video where a vicious mob of white thugs beat a group of black customers and it isn’t depicted as racist. Show me just ONE.

    It occurred to me as I wrote that sentence to add, “In the last century.” That may not be true. We had our lynchings even in the 1950s. BUT NOW THE LYNCHINGS ARE GOING THE OTHER WAY, AREN’T THEY???

    Jesus prophesied that in the very last days, race would rise against race. Which means soon the lynchings will be happening BOTH ways as whites rise up in the same rage that has increasingly characterized blacks since the Panthers in the 1960s and increasing to Ferguson today.

  3. truthunites Says:

    “YES, it was a RACIST attack”

    If it’s that clear to you, then rest assured that the perpetrators will charged with a hate crime, and perhaps either the state attorney general or the federal attorney general will investigate it.

    Racism is just not accepted by liberals today.

  4. Michael Eden Says:

    truthunites,

    Ah, I see the tongue in your cheek as you write that.

    Liberals, as we both know, ABSOLUTELY LOVE RACISM. As long as it is an engine that destroys what they want to have destroyed so they can build in America’s place what they want to build.

    The Democrat Party would probably collapse if they quit inciting racist hate, class hate, gender hate, and now even gerontophobic – that’s hate for the elderly – hate.

  5. opinionofmatter Says:

    Do you think the people of Iraq and Afghanistan consider the US govt to be a foreign aggressor? You accuse liberals of hate but reading a few of your posts makes me believe you hate much more that those you accuse. Maybe you could reprise your post on oil prices with the blatantly cherry picked facts also, i believe you predicted $12/gallon gas by the end of Obama’s second term which looks patently silly at this point.

  6. Michael Eden Says:

    opinionofmatter,

    People like you sadden me even as you sicken me.

    I don’t have a problem with “hate.” If you don’t hate what the ISIS beheaders are doing, you are evil. If you don’t hate what the rapists and child molesters, etc., are doing, you are truly evil.

    But on your morally depraved account, the fact that I hate wickedness makes me morally equivalent to those who hate righteousness.

    So what you are is someone who first calls good evil and evil good, and then, being a hypocrite, you demonize the people who call good good and evil evil for hating the evil that you love. But your hate, of course, is fine.

    I am going to be blocking you for accusing me of “cherry picking facts” without having the integrity to bother to try to produce even ONE fact that I “cherry picked” and explain why something else is true instead. I mean, pardon me for not allowing you roaches to constantly force me to defend myself against negatively loaded questions where the accusation amounts to the proof. Pardon me for not appreciating your interrogation fallacy. Pardon me if I don’t endure your fallacy of false presupposition.

    No, for you, of course, the accusation is more than enough. Facts are irrelevant to you. There’s no point bothering to have an argument with someone who believes, as you do as demonstrated by your comment, that just to demonize somebody is tantamount to having refuted their argument. So go crawl around with the other roaches who don’t have any proof and don’t think they need any because actual genuine thought is impossible to them.

    P.S. Two things: 1) No, you liar, I did NOT predict that gas would cost $12/gal by the end of Obama’s second term; I predicted that gas would be $12/gal when Iran got its nukes and the ballistic missiles to deliver them and they could block the Strait of Hormuz with impunity, thus driving up oil prices to never-before-seen highs. Because you are a true turd who accuses me of cherry picking facts and then proceed to entirely invent your own. While I believe it is obvious that Iran will get nukes BECAUSE of the Obama presidency, I don’t know when they will get the nukes and the ballistic missiles they need to stop America from intervening by having ballistic nuclear weapons to take out several American cities if we go to war with them. And 2) just in case no one knew, Obama’s second term aint over, you moral idiot.

    I still predict that we will see gasoline at $12/gallon after Iran gets its nukes and the means to deliver them to American cities. What day that will happen, I don’t know. But it WILL happen.

    If Bush’s presidency had been judged at six years, the way you are now giving Obama a pass, his economic record would have dwarfed anyone’s but Reagan’s. And to compare Obama to Bush, realize that the economy would blow up more than a year and a half from today. Because when Bush was president it blew up in September 2008 with only four months before the end of his second term. So your assertion that Obama has stopped the rise of the oceans and healed the planet and nothing will change is what is asinine. You are clearly not intelligent enough to understand this, but worms can turn and turn quickly.

    Now get lost.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: